As DR Congo and M23 rebels agreed on a roadmap for peace talks, the announcement may offer a moment of hope to communities that have endured years of conflict, violence, rape, displacement, fear, and uncertainty. But it also raises a difficult question about how societies and their leaders approach war: When does announcing peace become more important than achieving it?

Peace talks are important. Negotiations can create opportunities for opposing sides to stop fighting, address grievances, protect civilians, and eventually build lasting peace. But agreeing to talk is not the same as resolving the reasons people are fighting in the first place.

This is where the situation in eastern DR Congo raises a much larger social issue.

How many times can a peace process be announced before people question whether peace is actually being pursued, or being publicised?

For communities living through conflict, a peace announcement is not just an abstract political event. It can mean the possibility of returning home, rebuilding a business, sending children to school without fear, or simply sleeping without wondering whether violence will reach them tomorrow. Highlighting these tangible outcomes helps one understand what meaningful peace looks like and why it matters.

People affected by war do not experience peace through press conferences. They experience it when the shooting stops, displacement ends, violence stops, communities become safe, and they can begin rebuilding their lives.

This is why the language surrounding peace matters.

Leaders may announce agreements, roadmaps, negotiations, ceasefires, and diplomatic progress. But without clear criteria defining what makes peace 'genuine,' such declarations risk being superficial. Clarifying this helps readers distinguish between surface-level announcements and real peace.

One may therefore ask: Are leaders sometimes too quick to celebrate the start of a peace process when what ordinary people desperately need is an end to the war?

War is rarely sustained by one announcement or ended by one announcement. Conflicts can be driven by political interests, competition over resources, territorial disputes, historical grievances, insecurity, and struggles for power. Ending them therefore requires more than sitting around a negotiating table.

It requires political will.

It requires trust.

It requires accountability.

And most importantly, it requires a genuine commitment from those with the power to influence the conflict.

This does not mean peace talks should be dismissed. On the contrary, dialogue may be one of the most important tools available for ending violence. But negotiations should be measured by what they produce for the people living through the conflict, not simply by how impressive the announcement sounds.

Because for a person forced from their home, the phrase "peace talks have been agreed" does not immediately mean they can go home.

For a family that has lost someone to violence, it does not bring that person back.

For a child who has grown up surrounded by conflict, it does not automatically create a safe childhood.

And for communities that have repeatedly heard promises of peace, another announcement can bring hope while also producing understandable scepticism.

This is where leadership responsibility becomes important.

Leaders can negotiate, compromise, enforce agreements, protect civilians, and address the conditions that allow conflicts to continue. To build trust and confidence, establishing accountability mechanisms is crucial to ensure commitments lead to real change, not empty promises. This helps citizens feel assured that peace efforts are sincere and effective.

A peace agreement that is never properly implemented can become another chapter in a conflict's history rather than the beginning of its end.

There is also a broader social problem here. Modern society has become increasingly accustomed to consuming major political events through headlines. We see the announcement, react, share, debate, and move on to the next story.

But war does not move on that quickly for the people experiencing it.

Their reality continues long after the cameras leave.

That is why we shouldn't judge peace solely by leaders' announcements. Instead, focus on tangible indicators like civilians returning home, communities becoming secure, weapons falling silent, and displaced families rebuilding. These concrete measures demonstrate whether peace is genuinely taking hold and help one recognise real progress.

Are civilians returning home?

Are communities becoming secure?

Are weapons falling silent?

Are displaced families able to rebuild?

Can children grow up without the constant presence of war?

These are the measures that matter.

The danger of repeatedly celebrating peace before it has been achieved is that it can create the appearance of progress while the underlying problems remain unresolved.

And when peace becomes something announced rather than built, people can gradually lose faith not only in individual agreements but in the possibility of peace itself.

The DR Congo–M23 situation therefore reminds us that peace is not a headline.

Peace is a process, not a headline. Achieving lasting peace requires sustained effort, difficult negotiations, and ongoing commitment long after the initial announcements fade from the news cycle.

It requires difficult negotiations, uncomfortable compromises, accountability, and sustained commitment long after the cameras disappear.

Because announcing that peace talks will begin is only the beginning.

The real achievement is reaching a point where people no longer need another announcement to believe that they are safe.

Perhaps that is the question we should keep asking whenever another peace agreement makes the headlines:

Are we celebrating the announcement of peace—or are we finally witnessing the work of achieving it?

Video: https://youtu.be/Am6mdVzWtZA